Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (Fed. Cir., May 12, 2016)
相關案Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation的討論 (Fairsky Patent Memo, May 16, 2016)
U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 (代表請求項：Claim 17)
相隔不到一個星期，關於軟體專利的適格性問題，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院做出兩個判決，一個適格，一個不適格。兩天前的這個判決，還直接引用了上禮拜的判決。
把這兩個案子放在一起比較，關於Alice兩步測試法的第一步究竟應該怎麼操作，應該就比較清楚了。以下整理相關重點供參。
案件背景事實
TLI Communication在2014年告了德拉瓦州與東維吉尼亞州地方法院告了好多家公司，包括Tumblr、Twitter、Pinterest、Snapchat、Vine、Facebook、Instagram等等，侵害美國第6,038,295號專利 ("295專利")。這個專利的原專利權人是Siemens Aktiengesellschaft，經過一連串的轉讓後，專利在2013年轉讓給TLI Communication，然後在2015年2月質押給DBD Credit Funding。通常這是NPE為了持續打仗在籌錢的意思。
295專利的代表性請求項是claim 17：
17. A method for recording and administering digital images, comprising the steps of:
recording images using a digital pick up unit in a telephone unit,
storing the images recorded by the digital pick up unit in a digital form as digital images,
transmitting data including at least the digital images and classification information to a server, wherein said classification information is prescribable by a user of the telephone unit for allocation to the digital images,
receiving the data by the server,
extracting classification information which characterizes the digital images from the received data, and
storing the digital images in the server, said step of storing taking into consideration the classification information.
針對295專利，被告們手牽手提出了Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (關於軟體專利，這已經是標準動作了，相關討論請參考這裡) (真的是手牽手，被告們雖然在不同法院不同案子裡訴訟，但提的是consolidated motion)。地方法院同意被告們的聲請，裁定原告的專利請求項所主張的，是 “taking, organizing, classifying, and storing photographs” 這個抽象概念，因此不適格，專利無效。
規則整理
聯邦巡迴上訴法院確認了地方法院的裁定，並且趁這個機會，整理了Alice兩步測試法中，第一步的基本概念。
首先，在判斷請求項是否指向抽象概念時，要小心不能過度簡化請求項，因為理論上，其實所有的請求項某種程度都會涉及抽象概念、自然法則或自然現象：
[I]n determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293). Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 n.12 (1981)
(判決文第7頁。)
其次，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，不是提到具體可見的元件，就會脫離抽象概念：
[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (claims that recite general-purpose computer components are nevertheless “directed to” an abstract idea)....
(判決文第7頁。)
在這邊聯邦巡迴上訴法院提到了幾天前的Enfish案 (該案的整理請參考這邊)，並比較了幾種可以通過Alice兩步測試法第一步的態樣，以及幾種不會通過的態樣：
We recently clarified that a relevant inquiry at step one is “to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-2044, slip op. at *11 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016).
(判決文第8頁。)
會通過的態樣包括：
- claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer”
- claims ... directed to a solution to a “technological problem” as was the case in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364
- claims ... solve “a challenge particular to the Internet.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
不會通過的態樣包括：
- claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices,” or
- claims reciting “use of an abstract mathematical formula on any general purpose computer,” or
- “a purely conventional computer implementation of a mathematical formula,” or
- “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.”
(判決文第8頁與第10頁。)
本案請求項不適格的原因
主要問題在說明書的內容。
Claim 17雖然包括了硬體，例如 "telephone unit" 與 "server"，但是說明書中的描述證明了這些所包括的硬體，只是抽象概念運作的一般環境，並沒有具體指出claim 17究竟解決了哪些這些硬體或環境的問題：
On its face, representative claim 17 is drawn to the concept of classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification. While claim 17 requires concrete, tangible components such as “a telephone unit” and a “server,” the specification makes clear that the recited physical components merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.
其關於發明領域的描述印證了上面這個問題：
And the specification’s emphasis that the present invention “relates to a method for recording, communicating and administering [a] digital image” underscores that claim 17 is directed to an abstract concept.
(判決文第7-8頁。)
說明書中關於發明所解決的問題，也印證了上面這個問題：
According to the ’295 patent, the problem facing the inventor was not how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data. Nor was the problem related to the structure of the server that stores the organized digital images. Rather, the inventor sought to “provid[e] for recording, administration and archiving of digital images simply, fast and in such way that the information therefore may be easily tracked.” ’295 patent, col. 1 ll. 62–65.
(判決文第8-9頁。)
說明書中關於可視的元件，也僅以純功能性的方式描述，或以模糊的用語描述功能，缺乏技術細節，所以請求項的重點看起來不是改善 "telephone unit" 或 "server"：
The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms. For example, the “telephone unit” of the claims ... is merely a conduit for the abstract idea of classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification.
Likewise, the server is described simply in terms of performing generic computer functions such as storing, receiving, and extracting data.... the functions of the server are described in vague terms without any meaningful limitations.... In other words, the focus of the patentee and of the claims was not on an improved telephone unit or an improved server.
(判決文第9-10頁。)
因此，本專利中所請求的，於圖像附加比如日期與時間等分類資料，以便已有組織的方法儲存資料，是眾所周知的基本概念：
Here, we find that ... attaching classification data, such as dates and times, to images for the purpose of storing those images in an organized manner is a well-established “basic concept” sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.
(判決文第10-11頁。)
最後，把抽象概念限定在特定環境 (比如本案是行動電話系統) 也沒用：
Lastly, although the claims limit the abstract idea to a particular environment—a mobile telephone system—that does not make the claims any less abstract for the step 1 analysis. See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362–63.
(判決文第11頁。)
Alice 兩步測試法的第二步
第一步沒過，還有第二步，也就是判斷請求項在抽象概念上有沒有增加 "significantly more"。
然而本案的請求項，第二步也沒過。其中比較值得注意的，是claim 10跟11分別包括了 "image analysis unit" 跟 "control unit"，看起來是很特別的元件，有機會構成 "significantly more"：
10. A communication system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said server includes an image analysis unit for determining quality of the digital images.
11. A communication system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said server includes a control unit for controlling resolution of digital images in said at least one telephone unit.
但是問題又出在說明書。說明書中關於這兩個元件，仍然沒有具體的技術說明，只有抽象的功能性描述：
While these units purport to add additional functionality to the server, ’295 patent, col. 5 ll. 14–32, the specification limits its discussion of these components to abstract functional descriptions devoid of technical explanation as to how to implement the invention.... Such vague, functional descriptions of server components are insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
(判決文第13-14頁。)
結論
綜上，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，295專利缺乏技術細節，所以請求項中所描述者，只是把抽象概念 "應用於電話網路"。295專利因此指向了不適格的標的。
In sum, the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use. Although the claims recite that the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner is carried out in a telephone system, the ’295 patent fails to provide the requisite details necessary to carry out that idea. Just as “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patenteligibility,” Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1371–72 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), here, steps that generically spell out what it means to “apply it on a telephone network” also cannot confer patent eligibility. Thus, we find that the ’295 patent is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and we affirm the district court’s judgment.
(判決文第14頁。)
心得整理
撰寫軟體專利時，說明書的內容，包括發明領域、發明解決的問題、以及實施例的說明等等，必須做到兩個要求：
- 本發明解決了哪些硬體或環境的問題；以及
- 交代技術細節，而非僅以純功能性的方式，或以模糊的用語來描述功能。
以免被認定為是單純加入硬體，或是單純限縮概念在某個環境，這樣會連Alice兩步測試法的第一步都無法通過。
會通過的態樣包括：
- claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer”
- claims ... directed to a solution to a “technological problem” as was the case in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364
- claims ... solve “a challenge particular to the Internet.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
不會通過的態樣包括：
- claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices,” or
- claims reciting “use of an abstract mathematical formula on any general purpose computer,” or
- “a purely conventional computer implementation of a mathematical formula,” or
- “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.”
- Alice兩步測試的第一步中，關於軟體專利是否指向抽象概念，是看請求項整體的焦點，是否在特定電腦功能的改善 (比如本案是電腦資料庫的自參照資料表)，還是在只把電腦當成工具的，可當成是抽象概念的流程。
- 不受請求項文字限制，廣泛地描述請求項，只會讓101條的例外吞噬了整個規則。
- 發明 "可以在通用電腦上跑" 不會毀了請求項。
- 發明沒有參照到 "硬體" 也不會毀了請求項。
以上整理僅供參考。這樣對於Alice兩步測試法的操作，claim與說明書應該怎麼寫，應該更清楚了吧。
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。